JayGlad

Mormons are Christians.

"We" are not responsible for either the content or the presentation of the endowment. I trust that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve along with those they have chosen to create such things are doing fine by God's standard, which is sufficient for me.

Coming into this thread late, so I apologize.
 
This is not addressing a specific individual, but what I've gathered from the discussion in general. All too often we have the tendency to question why God does what He does and why can't He conform to our wishes. What we need to understand is that we should be asking ourselves why can't we (collectively and individually) accept His will and confirm to His way of doing things.
 
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
 
As we move closer to His ways and His thoughts, we are taking upon ourselves the "divine attributes" the apostle Paul spoke about (2 Peter 1). "For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ [and why He does things the way He does]" (2 Peter 1:8).

Coming into this thread late, so I apologize.
 
This is not addressing a specific individual, but what I've gathered from the discussion in general. All too often we have the tendency to question why God does what He does and why can't He conform to our wishes. What we need to understand is that we should be asking ourselves why can't we (collectively and individually) accept His will and confirm to His way of doing things.
 
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
 
As we move closer to His ways and His thoughts, we are taking upon ourselves the "divine attributes" the apostle Paul spoke about (2 Peter 1). "For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ [and why He does things the way He does]" (2 Peter 1:8).

It's already been said that excommunication is not a form of punishment, and should not be compared to anything punitive. If anyone insists on comparing excommunication something worldly, it can be compared to bankruptcy.
 
Let's take a legal description of bankruptcy and adjust it for explaining excommunication: 'A legal proceeding involving a person that is unable to live up to his covenants and thereby incurred spiritual debt that he alone is unable to pay. The excommunication process begins with a petition filed by a judge of Israel (most common) or on behalf of a member (less common). All of the member's spiritual assets are measured and evaluated, whereupon it is recognized that the member is incapable of paying said outstanding debt, due to violation of his sacred covenants. Upon the successful completion of excommunication proceedings, the debtor is relieved of the covenant obligations incurred prior to filing for excommunication.'
 
Excommunication is actually an act of immense love, on the part of our Savior. He has provided the means by which a "debtor" is allowed to step out from under the crushing debt of sin and broken covenants, set his life back in order, repent of those sins, reapply for baptism and the renewal of temple and priesthood blessings, thus being welcomed back into full fellowship in the kingdom of God on earth. What could be more loving than that!? How is that punitive?
 
If you want to talk about punishment, think about the "debtor" being without the way and means to get out of such debt and being forced to suffer the consequences. That would be punishment; that would be punitive!
 
Remember, it is the work and glory of the Savior "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," and in some instances that process will require excommunication.

Let me give you a little more as an assignment - for fun.  Take Abraham chapter 3 and read that in conjunction with Doctrine & Covenants section 88.  Now think in terms that Abraham was given to an ancient culture whose mathematics and science was based in realization of ratios.  That all things exist as ratios of other things.  (could cover this in much more detail but just understand that the ancient culture demanded that real things have ratios in order to exist in harmony with each other).
 
Now compare that with D&C section 88.  Which covers basically the same religious concepts but this time with Newtonian based culture and traditions.  Things like the laws of thermal dynamics and Newton's laws.  Note that one is based in ratios and the other based in laws.  Then realize that both were written by the same person with no more than a 3rd grade education and that the subject matter is in essence the same but representing two very different periods of time and two very cultures.
 
What you are seeing is empirical evidence that Joseph Smith was very unexplainable and unique.

For example....me. I disagree with this take on things. Well...to me more precise, I think it strange to draw conclusions of this sort when we do not have the evidence to support it.
 
If and when the papyri re-appear (which is an impossibility as far was we understand it per the Chicago fire), and then Egyptologists proclaim nothing therein mentions Abraham, then sure, we can still work around that from a faith perspective and maintain that the end result was inspired regardless of the source material. But without any evidence whatsoever that we actually have the source material, why should we feel compelled to back the, "Joseph must have been a doofus," type thinking?
 
Joseph said it was a literal translation. Until there's solid evidence indicating that he misunderstood something, I see no good reason to presume otherwise.